Money changers in the temple, help me understand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loboto-Me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loboto-Me

Guest
After Mass, my husband and I were discussing the readings, and I admitted that it brought up a question. I was waiting for our priest to explain further during his homily, but unfortunately, the homily didn’t “go there”.

My question was, how does the Chuch justify selling baked goods and little booklets within the Church building? When I told my husband this, surprisingly, he was wondering the same thing during Mass. That made me realize that if I was wondering about this, and my husband was as well, then that would mean this thought came to the mind of many other parishioners as well.

The thing is, Jesus was angry but really, the money changers were doing something pretty benign. They were changing money over into currency that was usable in that city, but also selling items that people could offer as sacrifice to God. Worshipers from all over that “world” were coming from far away, making it difficult to bring offerings that would stay unblemished on the long journey. So it was a service for the worshipers no? So if Jesus was angry at this, I have to wonder if He’s also angry that we also sell things within His Father’s House?

I’m looking forward to more insight, thanks my friends
 
Some commentaries I’ve read say that the money changers were giving a terrible rate of exchange between the Roman coins and Jewish coins. Those selling animals for sacrifice were also overcharging.

It makes us angry today, too. Why does a hotdog and a coke cost $6 at Disneyland and $2.50 outside the gate? How come 7-11 will sell you a ridiculously large soda for $1.39 and the movie theater $3.50 for 1/4 as much? Or a bottle of water at the airport for $3.00 when you can get a case of water for the same price at Walgreens? The overhead is not that much greater at those locations. It’s just plain price gouging. It’s wrong.

And then to do it inside the Temple!

Parish bake sales tend to underprice cakes, if you ask me. But buying a cake is not a requirement to worship inside our church, either. And offerings and sacrifices were part of the Jewish faith.
 
From the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

2:14 In the temple: The Jerusalem Temple was divided into several courts. The outermost court, open to Gentile pilgrims was used for selling sacrificial animals and exchanging foreign currency for the appropriate coins needed to pay the annual Temple tax. Jesus is angry that the merchants are robbing Israel through inflated rates of exchange and robbing the Gentiles of the opportunity to worship and pray (CCC 583-84).
 
Ahh! They were using the gentile’s worship temple itself as the market place? I imagined that it was done just outside the temple.

That is an insight for me.

I think I “get it” now. They were using the Temple proper (the area for Gentiles) as a “den of thieves” and therefore was denying them an area to worship and on top of it all they were overcharging the worshipers therefore it was a two-fold problem.

We as Catholics are undercharging many times, and not denying a place to worships. Do I have this right? Secretly, my scrupulous self would still prefer the selling be done elsewhere 😉 but I can get over it.

Any other insights?

Bless you my friends 🙂
 
Actually our priest addressed this in the homily. Let me see if I can explain.

The Temple was basically split into four parts. The first was the sanctuary. This place only the high priest could enter and only once a year. Then there was a section JUST for Jewish males. Then a section JUST for Jewish females and finally the last area was JUST for non-Jewish people.

The problem here was that all of the commerce was taking place in the final section of the Temple where the Gentiles SHOULD have been worshiping. The problem was that the ONLY place where the Gentiles could worship was being used, instead, as a place of commerce.This was not that sections purpose and it left those who wanted to worship with no place to worship!

Anyway, that’s how our priest explained it and this was why Jesus chased them all out. They were interfering with worship.

In the case of things that are sold in the Church foyer, those things are in no way impeding the people’s ability to worship so I would imagine they aren’t a problem. But can you imagine trying to worship with sheep, oxen, doves and money changers!!!
 
Another thing that I’ve heard mentioned in homilies past is that only “perfect” animals were permitted to be sacrificed. Many times, people brought their own animals, only to have them turned away. “Sorry. Your animals aren’t perfect enough, but you can buy one of our animals to sacrifice instead.” This was especially hard on poor people who wished to make a sacrifice, but whose home-brought animals were found lacking, and who couldn’t afford the high price of temple-provided animals.

Another thing is that it mirrors Jeremiah 7:
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Stand at the gate of the LORD’s house and there proclaim this message:
“‘Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD. 3 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. 4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!” 5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, 6 if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever. 8 But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.
Click to expand...
9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury,[a] burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, moneychangers didn’t exist in the Temple at this time, according to what I’ve read-- the moneychangers were there to exchange Roman currency for Jewish money. In addition, the word “robbers” has a very distinct meaning apart from the word for “thieves”, although a linguist might be better equipped to really explain the nuances present in the two (four?) accounts. But if the cleansing of the temple was meant to mirror Jeremiah, it may well have had a meaning far deeper than mere commerce, exchange rates, or unfairness in the sacrificial animal system.
 
Graubo3 said:
Scripture does not mention Jesus as “angry” but it does mention “zeal for his Father’s house”.

Peace, Graubo
Click to expand...
Thank you. I have never read ‘anger’ in this passage, personally.
 
I need a like button 🙂 All this sheds alot of light for me, and my husband.

Bless you all
 
Fr. Dwight Longenecker explains it well.
Do you know why the commerce in the temple was so bad? Not because you shouldn’t sell stuff in church. It’s because the Jews had to make sacrifice in the temple in Jerusalem. It couldn’t happen anywhere else. Furthermore, they had to sacrifice animals that were perfect. So here is what happened:
Click to expand...
gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2012/03/cleansing-temple.html

Fr. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy adds info about the whip mentioned in the Johnian account.
Contrary to some Renaissance art and modern motion pictures, Jesus in the New Testament never strikes a human being nor does he ever kill a person or recommend such a course of action. The cord or whip, found only in the “Cleansing of the Temple” narrative in John, is a Messianic symbol of authority (mt 3:12; lk 3:17) employed exclusively on the livestock in order to move them out of the Temple. The fact that the moneychangers and owners of the livestock leave the Temple with the animals should speak for itself. Once the reason for their being in the Temple—to make money—is removed, their hearts know no reason to do anything other than follow their treasure and depart the premises. The Temple passage is a prophetic-symbolic condemnation of the almost universal evil of the
commercialization of God by the few to the spiritual detriment of the many…
Click to expand...
centerforchristiannonviolence.org/data/Media/ATFT_Booklet.pdf
 
Graubo3 said:
Scripture does not mention Jesus as “angry” but it does mention “zeal for his Father’s house”.
Click to expand...
Scripture does not say Jesus was angry. But in what spirit did he make a scourge, pour out money, overturn tables and ‘drive’ them out of the temple? It would be disturbing if Jesus did this with a smile on His face.
 
exnihilo said:
Scripture does not say Jesus was angry. But in what spirit did he make a scourge, pour out money, overturn tables and ‘drive’ them out of the temple? It would be disturbing if Jesus did this with a smile on His face.
Click to expand...
Someone pointed this out to me BUT I see these actions more as passionate zeal… not furious anger.

There is a difference. It’s very subtle but it’s there. 🙂
 
At our church the worship area is never used for bake sales etc… it is alway done in the gathering space, unlike the court to the Gentiles which was designated for worship.
 
Just some thoughts…

the Second Temple operation was hugely profitable for the high Priesthood, who were pragmatic Saduccees. It supported the economy of Jerusalem, with its myriad of festivals through the year.

The Second Temple was elevated some 100 feet above the surrounding upper city, with access by means of 3-4 staircases. One point is that it would be a complete mess if the hundreds of thousands of people there for the passover, for example, each brought their own animal up to be sacrificed. And if they lived far away, it made little sense to transport the beasts any great distance.

So the Priests probably had a system down where you could purchase a creature in a special area of the outer courtyard of the Second Temple, and arrange for a sacrifice time later that day (as animals were sacrificed only for 2 hours a day, and, by the way, many many people could share a single beast). So the livestock itself was not touched by the worshipers, but transported to the Inner Temple for sacrifice by special runners, or though a dedicated tunnel system.

The Second Temple was 35 acres in area. The first courtyard was open to everyone from anyplace, and people could preach and teach on any subject within reason. This was encouraged by the Priests and was a very evolved concept. Here is where the money was exchanged, beasts selected, etc etc.

Placed in the middle of first courtyard was the Inner Courtyard complex. This was limited to Jews only, and was surrounded by sixty foot tall walls. This could also serve as a fortress of last resot, and did, in the revolt of A.D. 66. Through these gates were the other three courtyards. The fourth courtyard was only for Jewish Priests, and it was here where the sanctuary building was, the inner room where God dwelt, the holy Corban kept, etc etc. The elevated sacrificial alter was seventy feet by seventy feet, and likely straddled the third and fourth courtyards, and purified male Jews could attend the sacrifice of their selected animals. The second courtyard was open to men and women, the third only to men, and the fourth to Priests.

So certainly the Priests made a pretty penny off the “sale” of beasts, and you can imagine with a system like this, the same “beast” can be sold over and over again and a completely different animal actually sacrificed. And, certainly, there were unscrupulous money changers who would prey upon the country rubes who came to worship. The Priests got to keep the rest of the animal, so you can be there was roast beef-aplenty at the dinner tables of the High Priesthood, and fashionable leather products as well.
 
exnihilo said:
Scripture does not say Jesus was angry.
Click to expand...
Amen. I believe I said that in post #7.
exnihilo said:
But in what spirit did he make a scourge, pour out money, overturn tables and ‘drive’ them out of the temple? It would be disturbing if Jesus did this with a smile on His face.
Click to expand...
Don’t know and don’t care and it really isn’t my quest for the day. Scripture does not mention Jesus had a smile at this time but it does mention that he had “zeal for his Father’s house”.

Peace, Graubo
 
Graubo3 said:
Don’t know and don’t care and it really isn’t my quest for the day. Scripture does not mention Jesus had a smile at this time but it does mention that he had “zeal for his Father’s house”.
Click to expand...
I dont know myself, but I do care. I appreciate being careful when we dont know with much certainty, but I do think it worthwhile to understand Jesus fully.

Zeal means having intensity or passion. In trying to imagine how someone with intensity or passion would use a scourge to drive people out of a place I have a hard time not imagining some form of anger. In as much as Jesus was fully human anger would not be beyond him. The Scripture describes God as hating (sin) and having anger (anger burning against Moses). There is no theological reason that Jesus could not have been angry. So anger is a possibility for this situation. I would like to know what word for emotion would better describes Jesus’ zeal when cleansing the temple than anger. The hesitation to use the word angry might stem from associating it with the imperfect anger of man which is often associated with being out of control and rage. I’m sure the anger of Jesus was nothing like the anger we typically experience from other men.
 
exnihilo said:
I dont know myself, but I do care. I appreciate being careful when we dont know with much certainty, but I do think it worthwhile to understand Jesus fully.

Zeal means having intensity or passion. In trying to imagine how someone with intensity or passion would use a scourge to drive people out of a place I have a hard time not imagining some form of anger. In as much as Jesus was fully human anger would not be beyond him. The Scripture describes God as hating (sin) and having anger (anger burning against Moses). There is no theological reason that Jesus could not have been angry. So anger is a possibility for this situation. I would like to know what word for emotion would better describes Jesus’ zeal when cleansing the temple than anger. The hesitation to use the word angry might stem from associating it with the imperfect anger of man which is often associated with being out of control and rage. I’m sure the anger of Jesus was nothing like the anger we typically experience from other men.
Click to expand...
I, personally, just don’t see anger. I see intense passion (and yes, that is a more appropriate word I do believe) for purity but not necessarily anger.

I do not believe overturning the tables and chasing the oxen and sheep out with a whip = anger, necessarily. I just don’t.
 
Just a thought…

Was looking at ancient coins, and saw a half-shekel coin from the Second Temple era. Now, all male Jews had to tithe a half-shekel a year to the faith. It can be assumed that that was the “entrance” coin that would get a Jew in the Inner Courtyards of the Second Temple.

But this coin had a picture of Agrippa on it. This is very curious, because devout Jews allowed no graven images anywhere in Jerusalem, and certainly not the temple. That the visage of Agrippa is on the half-shekel flies in the face of that.

The moneychangers might have been using sacrilegious coins in the Temple, and that set Jesus off.
 
steve53 said:
Just a thought…

Was looking at ancient coins, and saw a half-shekel coin from the Second Temple era. Now, all male Jews had to tithe a half-shekel a year to the faith. It can be assumed that that was the “entrance” coin that would get a Jew in the Inner Courtyards of the Second Temple.

But this coin had a picture of Agrippa on it. This is very curious, because devout Jews allowed no graven images anywhere in Jerusalem, and certainly not the temple. That the visage of Agrippa is on the half-shekel flies in the face of that.

The moneychangers might have been using sacrilegious coins in the Temple, and that set Jesus off.
Click to expand...
Uh, Agrippa only became king after Jesus. The Tyrian silver half-shekels used at the time as Temple currency actually carry the image of the Phoenician god Melqart (conflated with Hercules) and the eagle of Tyre. But your point still stands: they’re kind of offensive from the POV of the devout.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top